the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the ayes are 199, the nays are 230, the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> i ask for a record vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 246, the nays are 181. the bill is passed.

without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. mcgovern: i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the nays have it. mr. mcgovern: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote has been requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the ayes are one, the nays are 421. he motion is not adopted. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. ros-lehtinen: permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much. on tuesday, april 9, here berger corporation of america will celebrate its 50th anniversary, a well-known south florida-based company. it provides many hard-working americans with high-quality manufacturing jobs in our south florida community. i commend this navy corporation for its prowess and commitment to sustainable business practices and its fairness to its employees and generosity to our community. since 1963, its focus on quality and innovation has established it as an industry leader much to the credit of its founder,

herbert wagner. the legacy of success continues with its current president. this exemplary corporation and community partner has accomplished much over the years and i am pleased that it calls south florida home. congratulations to each and wishone at herbigger and i you many more years of success. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: the only way to get our economy growing stronger is take an honest account of the fiscal problems we face and put forward policies to address these challenges. it's called budgeting.

a fundamental part entails writing and passing a budget, something we haven't seen the senate in four years. four years, that's how long americans have had to wait for the senate to perform its most basic function as a legislative body. before today, the only thing certain was that the senate would not consider a budget. today, the senate democrats introduced a budget and i'm glad they did. it's about time. unform after reviewing their proposal, the only thing certain is that their budget will never balance. we owe the american people a responsible balanced budget. the house budget introduced yesterday, balances the budget in 10 years. the senate democrats' proposal never balances ever. a balanced budget will foster a healthier economy and create jobs, madam speaker. the american people elected us to lead and put forward solutions and not hide from the challenge and posture for the next election. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise to congratulate mauers recognized by fortune magazine as one of the best companies to work for. in my home state of georgia we have come to know mars is a great place to work. since joining the mars family, employees have been benefited from being part of the mars company. mars employees are given opportunities for growth and advancement and boasts a low turnover rate. and it strengthens its business odel by mentorship and a younger employee introduces an executive to internet. and it places high value on its

human capital which it demonstrates is a significant investment to its employees. through innovation and creativity, wrigley has new growth opportunities such as a new chewing gum line. i congratulate them for their hard work for building a great company. the millions of americans who enjoy juicy fruits and life savers and your other wonderful products. i wish you continued success. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there any other requests for one minutes? under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mrs. maloney: thank you, madam speaker. and i yield myself such time as i may consume.

this week, the house budget committee chair, paul ryan, laid out his budget plan. sadly, it's just more of the same. like a bad record, this year's republican proposal is virtually the same document as the one he proposed last spring. it harms the middle class. it harms low-income americans, and it is especially bad for women and families. now, they have framed this budget and called it a prosperity one, a prosperity plan. but this budget should be called the road to austerity, because it is a plan that is most noteworthy for the rather harsh austerity it demands of the many and the lavish benefit it extends to the few. it clearly envisions a rising

tide of selective tax cuts that would lift all yachts, but leave many dinghies behind. our republican friends like to talk about making the hard choices, but what they propose here would make it much harder for millions of americans and also make things much easier for a fortunate few. that's their plan. now, specifically under this plan, he has this new goal of balancing the budget in 10 years. and to accomplish this, he slashes funding safety net programs that, for seniors, students, children, low-income families and women. the budget slashes food stamps, cuts funding for infrastructure investments, like high-speed rail. we are falling way behind the rest of the world. we need to invest in our

infrastructure to stay competitive. and it does nothing for job creation or to help the unemployed. the ryan plan places medicare and really ends medicare as we know it by replacing it with a voucher system and replaces medicaid by making it a block grant to the states. these cuts hurt tense of millions of america -- tens of millions of americans who count on medicare for their health care coverage. don't just rely on what i'm saying and to quote the "washington post," and i quote, the 10-year spending plan released tuesday by representative ryan is virtually identical to last year's g.o.p. budget. it would defund president obama's health care initiative and guaranteed medicare coverage for future retirees and sharply

restrain spending on the poor, college students and federal workers. end quote. now, what i find very hypocritical about this budget is that they say that they are going to repeal obamacare or the affordable care act. yet, this bill passed this congress. it was upheld by the supreme court. we had an election, which this was the issue that people ran on, and president obama was re-elected strongly. and so they keep flip-flopping on this issue. they say they want to abolish obamacare, but then rely on the savings of over $700 million in that program. when congressman ryan was vice presidential candidate ryan, he campaigned against the health care provider cuts of $716

million, the same ones he wants to keep in this budget. the republicans opposed these cuts when they were part of the affordable care act. then they passed two budgets that included these cuts. and then congressman ryan presidential candidate romney campaigned against the cuts in the 2012 election. and now mr. ryan wants to keep them once again. that is not just an 180-degree turn. but 180 degrees times four. it is a change of 720 degrees. but one thing that is completely clear in this budget is that women in particular will suffer because of the choices the republican budget makes. instead of closing tax loopholes for companies that ship jobs overseas, the budget kicks kids out of head start.

instead of getting rid of tax breaks for the oil and gas industry, this budget cuts for single moms struggling to put food on the table, it cuts food stamps. and it seems to me the budget proposing we are ics tax 3.1%, but 1.1% loopholes. so if you just close those tax loopholes, you would be able to significantly reduce the deficit and the debt. why in the world are we giving tax loopholes for companies that move jobs overseas? if you are going to give a tax incentives, it should be to the companies that stay in america and create jobs for americans. now, instead of ensuring that women are not discriminated against by health insurance

companies, this bill would repeal the rights women earned in the affordable care act. the republican budget cuts medicare benefits, cuts medicaid services, cuts health research funding, so much more all in the name of a new agenda that they have that will cripple our economy and cause real and lasting harm to the women of america. now, the democratic approach is a more balanced one. green agrees that we need to reduce the deficit, cut the debt. but it's a matter of how you do it and what priorities you have in it and what's your time frame. the democratic plan is balanced. i would call it a three-legged stool. you have cuts, you have receive news and you have investments to help grow and expand the economy and create jobs, investments in education and innovation. now chairman bernanke has

testified before congress that many of the reasons why america is really digging their way out of this recession and bouncing back faster and stronger than europe is that we have had a balanced approach whereas europe has had austerity, austerity, austerity approach. as many economists say, you cannot cut your way to prosperity. and austerity needs to be balanced with receive news and also investment. now, i'm joined tonight with representative titus from the great state of nevada and re-elected in this session. she was an outstanding member of our caucus and thrilled she has come back to join us and i yield to the gentlelady as much time s she may consume.

ms. titus: thank you for organizing this very important special hour to talk about the republican budget and it's unacceptable impact on women. for the third year in a row, chairman ryan has proposed an uncompromising budget plan that is out of touch with my state of nevada's priorities and the country's vision for the future. chairman ryan has used a lot of gimmicks in his budget but it will never hide what it means for women. instead of laying out a fair and balanced plan, as you said, congresswoman, representative ryan's budget undermines the health and economic security of the elderly and the disabled, most of whom are women and disproportionately harms low-income women and families they struggle to support. it also would repeal the affordable care act. this landmark legislation that

we passed increases access to critical women's health services, such as prenatal and maternity care and it finally ends the long-standing notion that being a woman is a pre-existing condition. the proposed budget also threatens a laundry list of vital programs that help women and children, such as snap and w.i.c., head start, school lunches, tanf and pell grants just to name a few. these are programs that millions of women across the country and their families rely on every day just to get by. instead of protecting such critical programs, representative ryan and the republican party would rather protect tax breaks for the wealthiest folks in our country, for oil companies, and for those companies you mentioned, that ship our jobs overseas. the federal government -- i'm

sorry, the federal budget, is a blueprint for our nation's future. it's a statement of our national priorities. it should reflect who we are, and it should provide a path forward that we can all be proud of. my constituents in las vegas and our constituents around the country deserve better than this old rehashed ryan budget, which slashes programs for children, dismantles health care for women, eliminates the safety net for seniors and defunds education and needed research and development that we should be investing in as part of that three-legged stool. instead, we instead we need to get to work on a balanced plan that respects women and families. again, i thank you, ngresswoman maloney, and our

congresspeople who have joined us tonight, and urge you to give special consideration to the ryan budget with all those hidden little tricks and old hat policies. mrs. maloney: i thank you for joining us tonight to share how this impacts nevada, an important state you're representing. i want to express my gratitude that you have come back to congress and you're part of our caucus. another outstanding woman in our caucus is carol shea-porter from the great state of new hampshire. it is a state that's really unusual now in that all of its elected officials are women. the governor, the legislature, the state and the assembly. we're so pleased that their congresswoman is here today and i know she has a special message from the great state of new hampshire. ms. shea-porter: thank you for the chance to speak about the damage that the ryan budget

would do to women and families. a couple of points. the new ryan budget and the cuts to discretionary programs and the cuts to medicare and medicaid guarantee would disproportionately affect the women and children who are already suffering because of sequestration. the ryan budget would dismant they will snap food program like it does medicare. about 2/3 of the snap benefits fwe to families with children. the ryan budget would roll back affordable health care rovision, bringing back gender rating and allowing domestic violence. there are cuts that will force women and children in needs of families -- in need of programs to help them would kick them off. a special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children, the w.i.c. program, is one of the most successful programs, it will drop about

100,000 women and children if the program because of sequester, but even more would be kicked off in the republican budget. at a time when women are making unprecedented gains in higher education and the work force, a war on jobs is a war on women and their families. a budget is a moral document and the ryan budget fail this basic test of morality. this is wrong for women and it is wrong for families and we must reject this. i thank you for the chance to talk about . -- about it. mrs. maloney: i appreciate you being here tonight to talk about this special order, you raised some really relevant points. i want to talk about the special impact the ryan budget has on the pell grant cut. one of the ways women try to climb out of poverty and close the pay gap is through education. especially higher education.

but as we all know, college tuition has far outpaced inflation for years and years. that's why programs such as the pell grant program are so important and fully 2/3 of pell grant recipients are women. yet again, the ryan republican budget hurts women hurts women college student biscuiting nearly $83 billion -- billion, with a b, from pell grants over the next 10 years. they're doing this even though congress already enacted and paid for annual mandatory inflationary increases in 2010 and recently cut pell grant benefits and eligibility to control costs. so the ryan republican budget will make it that much harder for women to climb the ladder of opportunity, get a college degree, get a decent job, and start or maintain a family. it just does not need to be that

way. and as president obama has said, the math in this ryan budget does not add up. and the math that is there cuts programs helping working women and single moms. the ryan budget will be devastating for working women, low income families and young women trying to afford college, head start, early childhood care, food stamps, pell grants for college and so much more would be slashed under this budget. and let's start with early childhood education. many researchers and economists tell us that the very best investment that we can make in our society and our children is in early childhood education. thanks to the $85 billion in sequestration cuts which are

already in effect, so these cuts from the ryan brudget on top of the $85 billion from sequestration, but because of the sequestration, $70,000 children nationwide will be kicked off of head start. another 3,000 low income children will lose child care assistance because of the cuts to the child care and development block grant. that's a total of 100,000 low-income kids being kicked out of early childhood services. that's already happening as we are speaking tonight on the floor. well, the ryan budget would double those cuts, which mean another 100,000 kids losing services. what are the working moms of 200,000 children across the country supposed to do? women only earn 74 cents to the dollar of what men earn in

similar jobs, and how are these women going to afford to take care of their kids while they are at work when they lose these services? the answer is, they'll need to find another affordable child care option, which if you're a mom you know how difficult that is, or you'll have to cut back on hours at work because there is no child care. this will only widen the already economic divide that separates men and women. but it's not just the economic divide between him and -- between men and women. the gap between the have's and have nots, because of the ryan budget, and the bush years, has never been greater. but that's not all. that's not all. many of these same families would also lose the assistance they need so that they can feed their families. but now from the great state of maryland and the ranking member of the government reform and oversight committee, elijah

cummings, and it's good to hear that like-minded men have joined us on this special order on the ryan budget and how it affects american families. thank you for being here. mr. cummings: it's my honor. i thank the gentlelady for yielding and i thank you for calling this special order. as i was listening to you talk, i could not help but think about, particularly when you talked about pell grants and women, i could not help but think about something that you and i hear over and over and over again as we serve together on the joint economic committee. we hear that the less education a person has, the more recessionnary periods affect them negatively. in other words if you have a little education, high school

education, your chances of being put out of a job or not having a job are great. if you have a college education, you have a better chance of retaining a job. you talked a moment ago about women. and women with regard to pell grants. the other night i was just at howard university dinner, their annual dinner where they try to raise money for students to get awards, you know, scholarships and the president of the university got up and said something that was so very interesting, he said, you know, we are now have to let young people go who are -- who have averages above 3.2 because they don't have the money. and i can guarantee you most of those folks were women. he said when they did the research and looked at young people who left school years ago and tracked them, they noticed that only about 25% ever even return to school. what you're talking about is

quality of life for women. when you look at the ryan budget, cutting pell grants, and cutting those things that women are so concerned about, their children and how they're going to be able to raise them, to nurture them, to give them a head start, those things are being cut as if somebody is just going through a forest cutting down trees with a hatchet. so i think that we have to stand up for women, we have to make sure that we let the nation know what is being done in this budget, and make it clear that we're not going to stand for it. i just want to thank the gentlelady for her presentation tonight, for bringing us together with regard to this very, very important issue. keep in mind, he's talking about doing away with the affordable care act. so much of the affordable care

act goes to keeping people well, keeping women well, keeping their children well, keeping their families well. and allowing them to have affordable, accessible insurance. that's something that women are most concerned about. and being able to pay comparable rates that men would be paying. so we've got, he comes in, he wants to just do away with the affordable care act but -- and create, and give us this budget that really makes no sense and so, again, i thank the gentlelady for yielding and i yield back. mrs. maloney: i want to thank the gentleman for his insight on how this budget is affecting his constituents. o hear from him that women and men may have an almost perfect score in college and have to leave because they can't afford it, their pell grants have been cut, is just unconscionable.

that the wealthiest country in the world is not there to invest in the next generation, the next leaders, the next teachers and engineers that our country needs. but it's not just education. it's not just housing. we're talking about food. food on the table. once again, as they did last year, house republicans are proposing to slash the supplemental nutrition assistance program. this is commonly called the food stamps. this is for people who don't have enough money for their food, this helps them. and they are calling on take the food and food stamps and turning it into a block grant. new we who have worked in city, state, and federal government, we know that block grant is another way of saying cut. permanently cut. and in some cases, sliding it ut of existence.

that currently helps 47 million low-income americans afford the food they put on the tables every day. during the past few dwhreefers great recession, it's been a lifeline to those in need to make sure that in the wealthiest country in the world, american families don't have to go hungry. people who apply for food stamps need food. now women make up roughly 60% of snap's adult beneficiaries and more than half of snap's households with children are headed by a single adult. the vast majority, over 90%, of whom are women. that means that single moms, single moms on snap, are already struggling. to -- are already struggling to make ends meet and to cake care of their kids. they will be losing these

benefits because the ryan republican budget refuses to close those $1.1 billion -- no it's trillion. $1.1 trillion in tax loopholes. now, i for one say, let's close those tax loopholes and keep the food on the tables of america's families that need it. i find that outrageous. but i am really thrilled that a new member of congress, a woman with a great record of distinction in the state of florida, lois fran tell has joined us -- frankel has joined us, i want to thank her for coming and giving us the perspective from her state. i know when it's cold, all my constituents want to be in florida. thank you for joining us.

ms. frankel: i came up here as a new member and i really, in a spirit -- in a bipartisan spirit. i really wanted to be standing here today embracing mr. ryan's plan, but i have to tell you, i'm worried about it. i'm going to tell you why i'm worried about it. i'm worried about it for sabrina, for lucy, for ruth, for lola, and barbara. i'm going to tell you about them. sabrina is a small business owner, a cattering company and called my office because she is looking for a way to get a small business loan so she can stay in business. it's hard today getting loans from the bank. lucy is a bright-eyed student, young student in a community college, and she is thrilled to

have a student loan, a federal student loan. lola is a teacher, who has a daughter with cerebral palsy and she depends on services from the government to help her with her daughter. and ruth -- ruth is 91 years old. she used to be a ball of fire. but she recently hurt herself. just got out of the hospital and she can't move around. she can hardly get out of bed and depends on meals and wheels to feed her. so she has food every day. -- shen there is barbara has outlived most of her relatives. she's in a nursing home in my hometown, and she has

alzheimer's. and i know you asked me why am i worried about them. you know why i'm worried. they will be the victims of this proposed budget. and what's going to happen, will sabrina lose her business? lucy have top drop out of school. will ruth go hungry. will lola have to give up her work to stay home with her daughter? who is going to take care of barbara? who is going to take care of her? mrs. maloney: no one. no one. she has to quit her job and take care of barbara. ms. frankel: barbara is in no condition to take care of anybody. so, listen, we all know, the american people know that we have -- there's -- we have to get our fiscal house in order.

there is a deficit problem for us, but the american people want us to solve it in a responsible manner, because they also know this, we still have a job problem out there. we have a slow economic recovery and now as we are just turning the corner, all of a sudden we have this bill, this proposal, this budget that independent analysts tell us are going to throw two million people out of work, a majority of them women. and really crushes people like lucy, ruth, barbara and sabrina. we could tell each other hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of stories. mrs. maloney: would the gentlelady yield? ms. frankel: yes, i would. mrs. maloney: thanks for putting a human face on people who are

coming to your office for help. but also what has to be part of this equation, the economy is still very fragile and can't cut your way to prosperity. these deep cuts could put the economy in a tailspin. and chairman bernanke, the chairman of the federal reserve, has testified that we need a balanced approach, that we shouldn't slash so severely. and many economists are saying that the american economy is doing better than europe, because we are having -- not cutting as deeply as europe is. giving the economy a chance to recover. to go in with these draconian cuts, not only does it hurt people, but it could hurt the recovery, the overall economy that for the past 35 months has been growing private-sector jobs and digging ourselves out of that deep recession. it could possibly throw us back in it.

and i yield back. ms. frankel: what is the logic in taking little children out of head start programs? when we know that the past -- path to middle class, the path to be able to take care of your family, to take care of yourself, to be a tax-paying citizen is education. so i ask you, congresswoman, why would we pass a budget that think ke 27,000 -- i even more, the last sequester bill would take 27,000 kids out of child care, out of head start. and this new budget doubles down. why would we do that? mrs. maloney: i think you pointed out that this budget is not only draconian and unfair, it is filled with contradictions. why in the world would you let

these tax breaks continue for big oil companies that are making a profit, but we are subsidizing some of them to the tune of 40%? yet, you are going to take the future, our young kids, and throw them off. it is a total contradiction and it's completely wrong. and i want to point out the biggest contradiction in this budget, it repeals the affordable care act but keeps the law's budget savings and uses it to balance their budget. they say in the budget they are going to repeal the affordable care act. how are they going to repeal it? it's passed the congress and it's the law of this country. it was upheld by the supreme court. we had an election, where this was a central point of debate. and guess what, president obama won the election and he ran on the affordable care act. so they say they are going to repeal it, they don't have the votes to repeal it.

and even if they did, he would veto it. no way they could repeal it. it's a hoax. it's a hoax. and then they claim to protect medicare while ending medicare as we know it for future seniors and our children and our grandchildren. and the biggest hoax, i want you to comment on this, and sit there and say they are going to repeal the affordable care act and take the savings from the affordable care act, the $718 billion that was put there from the providers and use that to balance their budget. the numbers do not add up. ms. frankel: let me ask you this. does the repeal of the affordable care act come with a repeal of people getting ill? because -- i'm trying to figure out the logic here, if you

repeal the affordable care act, if you take medicare and now you turn it into a voucher program or what they call fancy, premium support, which means literally thousands of dollars more coming out of the seniors' pocket to take care of themselves, you are not repealing illness. all you are doing is shifting the burden back to the middle class and you hit it on the head when you said, let's keep giving those tax breaks right to the big oil company, the people who want to move their companies offshore, to corporations who -- big corporations with huge profits, who pay almost nothing in taxes, here's how we are going to clean up our fiscal house and we are going to tell people when they are oldest and sickest, you have to pay more

money, or just don't get sick. mrs. maloney: the gentlelady is correct. they're shifting the burden onto the elderly, the middle class and the poor. again, president obama's budget contains $3.1 trillion in spending. and in that budget is $1.1 trillion in tax breaks. so where are the priorities of this country? close the tax breaks. keep the food on the table. close the tax breaks and reduce the deficit. i think they're not sincere about wanting to reduce the deficit and the debt, because if they were, they would take those tax loopholes and close them, close them. some are important, just as the deduction for a family's home. that allows many middle class and moderate middle-class

americans to own their own home, but there are other deductions that make no sense. why in the world are we giving a subsidy to companies that move jobs overseas? it's crazy. if anything, the subsidy should be for companies in america, making it in america, creating jobs in america, and paying their taxes, their social security and medicare in america. so this whole budget is an exercise in contradictions and it's an exercise in really lack of good judgment or values. and i hope that we are able to defeat it. i hope that the democratic plan will be the one that is finally one that passes. this is just the same old, same old from the last two years. slash the safety net and protect

tax breaks. the ryan approach just isn't a -- or i would say fair or valued approach. ms. frankel: thank you, representative. i want to thank you for letting me join you here today. i want to say this. i know we have been standing up here and we have been critical of this ryan budget and respectfully, i think we are just saying it like it is, but i hope -- i just want to say this and i know you feel the same way. i hope that we can vent in our feelings here today and i want our -- constituents need to know that we are going to stay strong for them and the lucies and the barbaras of this country and the

men that we love, too, but i hope that we can find a way, find a middle ground and find a ason budget that gets people back to work, that we secure our families and we get our fiscal house in order in a reasonable amount of time. with that, i yield back to you. and i thank you so much. mrs. maloney: i thank you, congresswoman and you raised important points and one thing that wasn't raised, is the illnesses that we do not have cures for. and one of the things america has led the world in is scientific research, yet this budget cuts that research and cuts the national institute of health that could come up with a cure for the disses that she mentioned. and america is a place of innovation and medical

investment and congress should be focused on keeping that status that we don't want to lose our leadership in innovation. to give one example, breast cancer is one of the most common cancers in women. one in seven women will come down with breast cancer and one of the leading cancer -- causes of death among women of all races in america. in 2009, over 210,000 women in the united states were diagnosed with breast cancer and over 40,000 women died from the disease. over the past five years, the national institute of health spent more than $3 billion on breast cancer research, which dwarfs any amount we see in the private sector or nonprofit sector. and yet, the ryan budget -- the n.i.h. would be cut and slashed

by billions and billions of dollars. yet, these dollars are the hope for saving lives. they're the hope for finding cures. and we know that health research has paid off. another important area, alzheimer's. the number of women and men that contract alzheimer's is huge and growing. and this cut will be cutting the research that we have in alzheimer's and other life-saving efforts to prevent alzheimer's, parkinsons and others we have been making progress and all of that research is really at risk under the ryan republican budget. but i'm very pleased one of my colleagues from the great state of texas, sheila jackson lee, who is a strong advocate for

women, children and families has joined us. thank you for being here tonight and i yield to the gentlelady such time as she may consume. . . ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentleman who are on the floor that joined us this evening and i want to follow up as i listen to the discussion you just had, i met with dr. brinkley in the hallway, who is one of the leading researchers from baylor university in my congressional region, if you will. i consider representation, because it is a massive institution and he brought with him two of his researchers. in fact, my headline in one of my papers was the standstill

work of one of our important researches because of the sequester and this budget. all of that points to women who are most vulnerable as it relates to the need of research in chronic illnesses. let me talk about medicare and medicaid that's drastically cut and reordered under the ryan budget. i'm really saddened about the misinformation that comes in terms of its help goes to those who are fat cats. let me share numbers with you. many of these are women. women live longer so the needs that they have for medicare and social security may be extended. and may i take something out of our vocabulary, though it is in the dictionary. medicare and social security are earned. i don't know where we got the word entitlement.

entitlement suggests you're entitleded with no basis of responsibility. but they earned this. women earned this. and women started before the fight that we had, congresswoman, for pay equity over the last decade or two, they were making the lower wages. so their social security input had to be much lower as they continued to work years in. but let me just share with you on the medicare beneficiaries. annual income less than $22,500, 50% of the medicare beneficiaries, including that number women. chronic conditions of those who receive medicare, 40%, including that number of women. fair and poor health, 42%, women in that population. cognitive mental impairment, 23%, women in that population. so as i look at this budget, 60% of it is taking away health care

from the poor and middle class which would include women. the idea that the bill slants itself toward protecting the interest of the wealthy by not list anything deduction you're willing to take. i know we get into a discussion about deductions, we put ourselves in that circle but let me just say, middle class americans need mortgage deductions. i know, however, that that is one that is under discussion. but why did our friends writing this budget not list the deductions that they would be willing to put on the table? some of us realize that mortgage deductions help young families, it helps single women, it helps women who are maintaining or getting their first house. so here we have a special emphasis, i'm glad my colleague mentioned breast cancer, i have

introduced legislation on triple negative, it happens to have a far-reaching impact on women from all ethnic groups, whether they are caucasian, whether they are hispanic, whether they are african-american or asian, but it is a deadly form of the disease. a more deadly form of the disease. and so that kind of resection which many of us are arguing for is now limited because of this budget. the budget does not -- let me just say this, the budget take -- pays for -- takes for its own what was accomplished with the savings in the apordable care act. it takes for its own the cuts we made, were willing to make new york 2012, over $1 trillion in cuts and spending and it totally ignores economists who have indicated that the austerity format that was taken in europe was a completely wrong direction and that then impacts our families more negatively.

let me -- mrs. maloney: would the gentlelady yield for a second? ms. jackson lee: i'm happy to yield. mrs. maloney: i want to make sure our colleagues and listening public know the ryan plan assumes the $85 billion in sequester cuts, these cuts are on top of that. according to the bipartisan congressional budget office, the sequesters could cause the u.s. economy to lose $7 -- to lose 750,000 job. the ryan plan compounds the job losses. the economic policy institute has initial institutes that the house republican budget would cost two million jobs in 2014 alone, relative to current policy. so why in the world would we want to take these steps that is going to result in job loss? i yield back to the lady. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentlelady for that astute assessment. when i give these various points, women are disproportionately placed, many

of them are heads of households, many of them are senior women, many of them are going back into the work force because they have resource shortages if you will, and the ryan budget takes all of these to themselves, i.e., the $845 million in sequester cuts. i introduced legislation to introduce provisions out they have budget reconciliation act. we need to start from a fair point of view, not -- i call it nickel and diming, ending people's research, closing doors in the capital, a number of other things that are not good for america. let me just finish on this. if we are interested in r&d as we indicated, clean energy, slashed. having an impact on the quality of life of families raising children. what about nutrition assistance? snap programs. what an obliterating cut to the snap program which is now serving 48 million people. let me remind my colleagues that

these are military personsing women in the military, these are young families, these are individuals who are in school, and so women are disproportionately impacted and this, i think, is clearly one of the largest conflicts of reason and that is to underfund or take away the funding for the affordable care act that has been reaffirmed by the united states supreme court and has been documented as having a health care savings and providing for healthier america and here we are taking away coverage from 27 million americans. mrs. maloney: they took a-- they take away the good aspects of it, the preventive and health care they propose to eliminate that but keep the tax savings from it to balance their budget. it is a hoax. it's not realistic. it's not true. and i really appreciate your words here today on the floor.

ms. jackson lee: they take all the good things that democrats have worked on and can be dephoned as balanced and fair and utilize it in a budget that is absolutely lopsided. i thank you for having us on the floor to explain to the women of america why this budget will not be good for them, their children, or their expanded families and that we are committed to standing against this kind of approach that is realy not the american way. i yield back to the gentlelady. mrs. maloney: i thank the gentlelady. in conclusion, americans can't afford more fuzzy math and budget gimmicks. we need real solutions that help grow our economy, create jobs, support the health and economic security of our seniors, and one that will address the arbitrary sequester cuts. chairman ryan's budget fails to address any of these. our republican friends like to talk about making the hard choices. what they propose here would incleed make things much harder

for millions of americans. but it will also make things much easier for a fortunate few. that's their plan. the reality is that the majority 's ryan budget harms those who need help and doles out tax breaks and benefits to those who do not. so let me be as clear as i possibly can, the ryan budget, if it were passed by the house, would risk our recovery. my time has expired, i want to thank all the participants tonight, i thank the like-minded men who came to the floor to support us, and the women that have spoken out tonight on how the budget affects women, children, and their expanded families. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina

rise? ms. foxx: i send to the desk a priveleblinged report from the committee on rule -- a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rules. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 113, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 803, to inform and strengthen -- to reform and strengthen the work force system of the nation to put americans back to work and make the united states more competitive in the 21st century. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. thompson, for 30 minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may revise and extend their remarks as it pertains to this special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

mr. thompson: i rise to call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with us and pass the bipartisan legislation to strengthen federal penalties for straw purchasing of firearms. i'm a hunter and i'm a gun owner and i believe strongly in the second amendment. i support law-abiding americans' rights to -- right to own firearms. nothing in this legislation infringes on that right. this bill simply helps keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals who cannot legally buy guns on their own. i chair the house gun violence prevention task force. our task force has developed a comprehensive set of policy principles to help reduce gun violence. to develop these principle well, met with virtually every one -- everyone who had an interest on this issue.

republicans, democrats, the n.r.a., gun owners, and gun safety groups. mental health experts, educational leaders, and people from the video game and movie industries. hunting and sportsmans groups, law enforcement leaders, and the vice president of the united states. out of these meetings, one of the principles we developed dealt with -- dealt specifically with strengthening penalties for gun trafficking and for straw purchasing. this is something we should all be able to agree on. at a hearing yesterday held by my league and friend, mr. cummings from maryland, and his co-author, up with of his co-authors, mrs. maloney from new york, we heard testimony from new york city fireman ted sacardio. he was wounded and two of his fellow firemen were killed when

a gunman lured them to a house that that gunman had set on fire and then started shooting at them. the shooter, the shooter had his neighbor buy the gun for him because he could not pass a background check. the fireman said yesterday, and i quote, putting a gun in someone's hand that isn't supposed to have one must be stopped. so let's pass this bill this bipartisan bill, and let's stop it. i now yield to my colleague and good friend from maryland, the author of this legislation, and a leader on this issue, mr. cummings. mr. cummings: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise today to ask every member of the house to join our bipartisan efforts to combat firearm trafficking and co-sponsor h.r. 452, the gun

trafficking prevention act. earlier this year, i was honored to join colleagues on both sides of the aisle to introduce this commonsense proposal to make firearms trafficking a federal crime for the first time and to impose stiff new penalties on straw purchaser. since then the number of co-sponsors has swelled, adding both republicans and democrats. it is also -- it has also gained bipartisan support in the senate. our bill has been endorsed by law enforcement officials across the country, and it does not affect the rights of any law-abiding gun owner. the only people that would be against this bill would be straw purchasers and those who are forbidden legally from possessing a gun. just yesterday, we held a bipartisan hearing, as my colleague just mentioned, hear the account of first responders

who had been the victims of gun violence resulting from straw purchasers or other trafficking incidents. i want to reiterate what has een said by mr. thompson about this brave firefighter from new york who suffered multiple gunshot wounds, saw two of his colleagues gunned down on christmas eve when they were esponding to a fire. mike and tomasz were those colleagues who are now no longer with us. here's tomasz, a 19-year-old who had just joined the volunteer fire department. it turned out that the fire was set by a convicted felon, william spingler, who served 17 years in prison for killing his

grandmother with a hammer. he ambushed the first responders and sprayed them with bullets. spite his criminal record, spingler obtained guns to be used to kill these brave men. as mr. scardino says he supports our bipartisan legislation because he wants to keep guns out of the hands of deranged killers and prevent more tragic deaths like this. after working on this legislation for several years, mrs. maloney and i have never been more hopeful that we can pass it with significant bipartisan support. i urge my colleagues to pass this bipartisan bill. and mr. thompson, one of the things that has been said over and over again, and we hear it

from the n.r.a., is that we ought to deal with the laws that we already have. well, right now there is a loophole with regard to the laws we already have. and law enforcement, by the way, brought this to the attention of our committee and they didn't ask for a trafficking law, they begged for it, because as what testified to yesterday in the hearing, those who want to commit some kind of crimes, they are looking for a hustle, looking for something to make money off of. witnesses told us yesterday, the head of the san francisco police said it is easier to deal in guns and more lucrative than to deal in drugs. a lot of folks who would normally would be dealing in drugs are now dealing in guns, because there is no dedicated trafficking law and this is what our bill would do and increase those penalties for straw

purchases. i thank you for doing your hard work and bringing members of the house to forge ahead with regard to legislation to address these issues and i want to thank you and i yield back. mr. thompson: i thank the gentleman and i appreciate the fact that you provide clarity on the one issue, and that is that the critics of anything they try and do to prevent gun violence repeatedly state, just enforce the laws that are on the books. and here this gun trafficking proposal that you and mrs. maloney have introduced is, i think talking about the fact that sometimes you need other laws, because there are no laws on the books to prevent against something that leads to the tragedies that we heard about and you're hearing yesterday and sadly the folks in this new york area and the families of these

slain individuals will have to live with for the rest of their life. i can't emphasize enough, there is no dedicated law on the book that prohibits trafficking of guns and people are trafficking in guns and they are used to kill people. and we have an opportunity -- i commend you and mrs. maloney for not only your dedication and your effort to bring this to an end, but the fact that you have reached out across party lines. and you have a bipartisan coalition. you have bipartisan authorship of this bill, recognizing that we have to bring this to a stop. the only sad commentary that i have is one of your brave colleagues, one of our brave colleagues who was willing to stand up and take a position on this bill to prevent criminals from getting guns has been under attack by some who have just

mark characterized his position, mischaracterized his dedication, mischaracterized his motives and mischaracterized the bill that all of you are working so hard on. thank you for being here tonight and thank you very much for your tireless effort in bringing closure to this issue. mr. cummings: thank you very much. mr. thompson: i would like to yield as much time as she may require to my friend and colleague from new york, mrs. maloney. mrs. maloney: thank you for organizing this. i thank my dear friend and colleague, mike thompson not only for his leadership on the floor, but the great work he has done as the leader of the democratic gun violence prevention task force and one of the things he underscores at all of our hearings and meetings, he is himself a gun owner. he enjoys hunting and enjoys

having a gun for protection. he enjoys it for target shooting. but he also understands that certain guns are not for hunting, they're just for killing people, such as assault weapons and there are loopholes in our laws. i regret to inform him tonight there has been another mass murder in new york yesterday, where a gunman shot down four law enforcement in upstate new york. now, if we don't make changes, we can only expect more of the same. and it was only 10 days after the tragic killing of 20 young, innocent children in connecticut that the tragedy happened in upstate new york. now the straw purchaser that took -- bought the guns, the rifle and the assault weapon for the felon that murdered two

police officers and firemen, i doubt that that neighbor would have bought those guns for him if the law had been on the books that straw purchasers could be looking at 20 years for knowingly buying guns and giving them to a criminal or a person who could not legally have that gun. now this bill has been endorsed by 30 different law enforcement organizations. law enforcement is asking us to give them the tools to get illegal guns out of the hands. this bill that i authored grew out of a hearing we were having on violence on the border of mexico. and the agents testified that guns were being shipped into mexico that were then used to kill our border agents.

and so i asked the question, why don't we just stop the guns? at that point, the agents testified that they don't even bother to bring charges against straw purchasers because the laws are so weak, they call them, quote, a slap on the wrist, a paper -- a paid-for violation, that you wouldn't be punished at all. what we are trying to do with this bill is to make trafficking and guns, two felons, to drug cartels, to gang leaders a crime. it's unbelievable it's not a crime now. and to increase the penalties for the straw purchasers. i think it's reasonable, it's common sense and fundamental it will save lives in our country. it was introduced with mr. couplings, mr. meehan and mr. rigell. mr. rigell is a member of the

n.r.a. and i think mr. meehan was a former leader in law enforcement, so he had literally understood the need of it. and at our hearing yesterday and at the hearings we have had in the government reform and oversight committee, law enforcement is basically begging us, absolutely begging us, to give them the tools to better protect americans. and i hope that we will listen to our chairman's plea, mike thompson's plea, that at least on this, and forge a bipartisan effort to pass these two important bills. so i thank the gentleman for his leadership, and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. thompson: i thank the gentlelady for her dedication, for her hard work on this and for her taking time to be here tonight to talk about this. and you raised the issue and praised those on the other side

of the aisle, many of whom have experience of one member from virginia who's an n.r.a. member, one from pennsylvania, who i believe is a district attorney, extensive law enforcement background. it's important that we have this type of across-the-aisle cooperation. as a matter of fact, the people of the united states of america, everyone one of us here, we hear it in our town hall meetings and read it in our constituent mail, our friends tell us, our neighbors tell us, work together to solve the problems that we all face as americans. and the fact that we have folks on the other side of the aisle coming forward to work together, and then they are demonized and criticized for doing this, all americans need to speak out against this. when something like this happens, we need to let everyone know that no, we want our

members of congress to work together to solve these problems that threaten our communities, threaten our children, threaten our grandchildren and threaten our neighborhoods. and it's very, very important to do that, as the gentlewoman pointed out. i am a gun owner, and i hunt. and i believe strongly in the second amendment. and i'm not interested in giving my guns up and i'm not going to ask any other law-abiding citizen to give their guns up. but at the same time, i'm a father and i'm a grandfather, my kids and their children, they deserve to live in a safe community. two of my sons are first responders. one is a firefighter and the other is a deputy sheriff. and when i sat through your hearing yesterday and listened to the testimony of the wounded firefighter talk about his colleagues that were killed, called to respond to a community catastrophe, a house on fire,

doing their job, doing what we asked these first responders to do and they get there and they are ambushed by a sick, deranged murderer who has a gun because somebody bought it for him, because he was -- because it was illegal for him to buy it himself. he couldn't buy it himself. it was just terrible to relive this for the witnesses who were there and certainly eye opening for anyone who paid attention to what the possibilities are out there in any of our communities. i would like to yield time to a new member of our house, someone who has been doing outstanding work, a vice chair of the gun violence prevention task force, someone who brought with her not only an interest and passion for this, but also an incredible

constituencyy, because it was in her district that sandy hook esty. ace, ms. ms. esty: thank you, representative thompson and the country deserves a voice and a vote. and i thank congressman cummings and congresswoman maloney on this important issue that is truly a remarkable hole in the law that these are the holes we saw yesterday. because the holes in the law are allowing holes in the heart of the families of america. and holes like this, shot with assault weapons to brave firefighters who were responding to a fire on christmas eve. and that's what this means. this is a 19-year-old young man,

following in his family footsteps to be a firefighter and ended his life. a man who shouldn't have had this gun. yesterday, i welcomed to washington, team 26, a group of yclists who rode to washington to reduce and prevent gun violence. and the ride was a successful event and it was what we are seeing across the country in the wake of the tragedy in newtown. americans have been touched by the strength and love of the families and the community of newtown in ways we have not seen before. that isn't going away any time soon because the american people are stepping up and making their voices heard for commonsense,

reasonable regulations and laws to reduce and prevent gun violence. and for far too long, communities across this country, like west webster, new york and newtown, connecticut, have paid for the price of inaction here in congress. we cannot keep losing precious children and courageous police officers and brave first responders and many other innocent lives because we have allowed and we are allowing guns to be put into the hands of people who do not have permission and do not have the right to have them. . . it is wrong we do not have laws making plching and trafficking in guns a federal crime. we've learned today and we learned yesterday in our hearing that it is against the law now

to traffic in drugs, it is against the law to traffic in tainted food, but it is not against our federal laws to traffic in illegal weapons in this country. and that is wrong and we need to fix it. that's the reason that there's gun -- that the gun trafficking prevention act has bipartisan support in the house. there's the same reason that this measure has the strong support and backing and urging and pleading of the hardworking law enforcement officers in my state who are dealing with the consequences of illegal drugs, including the leadership of connecticut attorney general and my friend george jepsen. there's a reason that law enforcement officials and groups around the country have been asking for us to pass this law. few policies reflect common sense like keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals. if we're going to accomplish that goal, we must address this

gaping hole with the lack of federal laws punishing gun trafficking and straw purchasing. now is the time to act. we have a real opportunity to enact and to fix this hole in the law and to prevent holes in the hearts of the american people. i am very proud to be a co-sponsor of the gun trafficking prevention act and the straw purchaser penalty enhancement act to do just that. for families of newtown and families across this country who are affected by gun violence, for children and police officers and first responders everywhere who put their lives on the line for us every day and for all those whose lives are at risk today because of illegal guns, let's meet the call of the american people to strengthen the penalties for gun trafficking and straw purchasing. i urge my colleagues to support this very laudable legislation and i urge members of the public to urge their representatives to

stand up for safety for our first responders, for our communities. thank you, my good friend and the gentleman from california. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. thompson: thank you, congresswoman esty. and thank you for your work on the task force and for your work every day to make sure that we all come together to make our communities safer places to live, to work, to recreate and to raise our families. one of the things -- one of the beautiful benefits of doing this work for me has been the honor i've had in not only working with great dedicated people, yourself included, but meeting some of your wonderful constituents. their passion is on fire in connecticut. and i've met with them many times with you, sometimes alone. we got another glimpse of it yesterday as you mentioned when the team 26 rode into

washington, d.c., rode all the way from your district to washington, d.c., to call on all of us to work together to pass these bills, to make our communities safer. and they're wonderful folks, they're dedicated, they're hard working and i can understand why after watching you and experiencing your leadership on this issue. so thank you very much for all that you're doing. and i just want to remind folks that, you know, the american people want us to make our communities safer. they want us to pass sensible laws that will do this. and everyone will tell you we shouldn't allow criminals and the dangerously mentally ill to get firearms. well, how in the world can you do that if you don't do some just real commonsense steps to make sure that doesn't happen? we're talking about a couple of them today. straw purchases and gun

trafficking. who in the world could be opposed to stopping straw purchases, and that means just what it says. it means somebody buys a gun and gives it to somebody who's not allowed by law to own a gun. and trafficking of guns. making a living, making a profit, making a business out of buying guns and then shipping them someplace, taking them someplace, introducing them to a community where they're going to ill-lawful purposes. nobody could possibly be against that. background checks is another one. and our committee, as you know, our task force will be holding a hearing this friday on background checks. 94% of the american people believe we should pass background checks. 84% of the n.r.a. members think we should pass a background check bill. we're going to have an opportunity next week when i

introduce legislation to put in place background checks for the american people to call their representatives and let them know this is important stuff. we need to have that check in place so people who are dangerously mentally ill, people who are criminals, if they try d buy a gun from someone selling that gun, it will be flagged, if they're not allowed to have them. and they'll be stopped, at least in that case. you know, they may try and find other ways to do it, but it's incumbent upon us to do everything we can to make sure that that doesn't happen again. i'm going to yield now to my friend, colleague, and vice chair of the task force, mr. bobby scott from virginia. mr. scott: thank you. and i thank you for yielding. but most of all i thank you for your leadership in the firearms task force, the prevention of

gun violence. did a tremendous job in bringing diverse views into focus to respond appropriately to the children who were murdered senselessly in newton, connecticut. i mean, young people, babies, bodies riddled with bullets. finally i think we have concluded that we have to do something about these murders in response to the murders. and one of the things we have to do is to reduce violence generally and violence prevention. this week i'll be introducing the youth promise act which has a proactive approach to make sure that young people get on the right track and stay on the right track. we have to deal as you have indicated with the mental health challenges. those with mental health challenges have to get services because if they're allowed to roam the streets with untreated mental health problems, you have a lot of difficulties.

but there have to be some fire-arm -- firearm-specific situations, assault weapon ban, limit the size of magazines. background checks, but straw purchases, people who buy firearms for others knowing that they could not buy them themselves, violating the law and circumventing the good background check process as we have -- processes we have has to be dealt with. i thank you for your leadership, i thank you for all that you've done. we have a lot that we can do in response of newton and we expect to do it mr. thompson: thank you. i thank the gentleman for being here tonight and for his leadership. madam speaker, i'll end where i started. as i said, we have to come together to work on these issues. these are the issues that the american people want us to find solutions for. close these loopholes, make sure that illegal gun activity doesn't take place, protect the second amendment and you know i'm foursquare on that, and

we'll do everything i can to make sure that that happens. but these are commonsense issues that we should find cooperation across the aisle. as i said, i'll end where i started. i call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join together and to pass these bills that both protect our second amendment rights and help make our communities safer places in which to live, work, play and raise our families. madam speaker, thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman yields back his time. does the gentleman from alifornia have a motion? does the gentleman from california have a motion? mr. thompson: i move to adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it.

the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow for morning hour debate.

>> ms. castor is recognized for a minute to close. >> thank you, mr. chairman. colleagues, my amendment is to create jobs by modernizing and renovating schools all across the country. to give us a real shot in the arm, bring our schools into the 21st century, provide the tools

to our students that they deserve. it is paid for. it is paid for and offset by eliminating tax loopholes and deductions for special interests. that's the choice, that is the difference in vision. it is far more important to the future of america to redesign high schools that focus more on science and technology, engineering and math, to better align with the available jobs. we can also cut energy wasted in old school buildings, thereby saving taxpayers money in the long run. is it a federal program? no. this money gets -- this gets money into the hand of our families and parents, the teachers, the school administrate rts, that are clamming -- administrates that are are clamoring for it. we can help reduce the deficit by boosting our small businesses and jobs now when they are needed, including construction firms, electrical engineers and talented teachers. i urge adoption of this. >> thank you. the gentlelady's time has expired. the question is on agreeing to the amendment from the gentlelady from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the noes have it. >> mr. chairman. >> roll call vote is requested. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. price no. mr. garrett no. mr. campbell no. mr. calvert no. mr. cole no. mr. mcclintock no. mr. lankford no. mrs. black no. mr. ribble no. there flores no. mr. rokita no. mr. woodall no. mrs. blackburn. mr. nunnelee no. mr. rigell no. mrs. hartzler no.

mrs. war louisky no. mr. rice no. mr. williams no. mr. duffy no. mr. van hollen aye. ms. schwartz aye. mr. yarmuth aye. mr. pascrell aye. mr. ryan aye. ms. moore aye. ms. castor aye. mr. mcdermott aye. ms. lee aye.

mr. cicilline aye. mr. jeffries aye. mr. pocan aye. mr. hoffman aye. mr. car difficult. mr. blumenauer aye. mr. schrader aye. mrs. blackburn no. mr. chairman. mr. chairman no. mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes are 16, the noes are 22. >> ayes 16, noes being 22, the amendment is not agreed to. are there further amendments in tier 1? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment.

>> the gentlelady from wisconsin. the clerk -- does the gentlelady from have an amendment? the clerk will designate the amendment. the staff will distribute copies. >> mr. chairman, an amendment offered by ms. moore to protect our vulnerable. >> the gentlelady is recognized for nine minutes. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. you know, it's always great to serve on the budget committee and it's oft repeated mantra is that budgeted are -- budgets are statements of morality and our principles. i was really happy to see, starting on page 27, that we had a section called safety net strengthened. now, you can't make this stuff up, so that's why i have to read it here. i go to the second paragraph. it says empowerment is a powerful alternative to dependency. and recent history offers a guide to policymakers seeking to repair the safety net. and it goes to talk about how bipartisan efforts in the 1990's transformed cash to welfare by encouraging work, saying that we ought to use

that as a model for other means-tested programs. and then it goes back to paragraph one, third sentence, that says, yes, poverty rates are the highest in a generation. over 46 million americans live below the poverty line. so it reaches the conclusion that in order to keep our commitment to those in need, especially in health care and nutrition programs, the federal government takes a dramatically different approach from the failed status quo. so, somebody needs to help me understand. i've never been accused of being a budget guru or anything like that. so i need help understanding exactly how we accomplish that with this new budget direction. so, when we cut $2.7 trillion out of medicare, is that the approach that we want to take in strengthening the safety net? we've already cut $2.4 trillion in discretionary spending over

10 years from programs that protect the most vulnerable and the most poor and with the sequester and this bill, we're talking about adding another maybe couple hundred billion in discretionary spending. we've cut -- we're going to cut $756 billion in medicaid cuts and we're talking about another $100 billion in food stamps. these are programs that affect the most vulnerable in our society. and so how do we do that and strengthen the safety net at the same time? you know, you know, the whole focus is that somehow these people ought to -- these people ought to be self-sufficient and stop being dependent. we look at the snap program. i mean, 75% of the people who receive snap are elderly, they're disabled, they're

infirm, they're children. do we tell someone 75 years old to go to work? do we tell someone who is on medicaid, that's going to sustain a $756 billion cut, you don't take up your bed and walk? is that our strategy? i guess i want to yield some time to some of my colleagues who may be able to talk about this as well. how about mr. cicilline. >> thank you. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i offer my strong support for this amendment. this really important amendment would help to ensure that we protect the most vulnerable americans. the majority's budget is immensely cruel to americans living in poverty. and those working to enter the middle class. surely we can enlist states in an effort to reduce poverty, without causing the most vulnerable among us to go hungry. in addition to preserving nutrition assistance, the gentlelady's amendment also ex tends the earned income tax

credit and child tax credit through 2023, which has helped lift millions of americans out of poverty. to ensure we continue investing in america's future, this amendment also extends the american opportunity tax credit, a critical life line for families pay fog for higher education. the eitc, the c.t.c. and the american opportunity tax code are investments in children and families striving for the american dream. once again this amendment is fully paid for with sensible changes to the tax code. i hope we can come together in a bipartisan way and support this sensible amendment. thank you and i yield back to the gentlelady. >> i would hope that my colleague, barbara lee, would like to weigh in on this. >> yes, and let me thank you so much, congresswoman moore, for this amendment. because it actually draws a line in the sand. it gives us a choice. i assume that if you oppose this amendment, which would provide targeted tax credits like the earned nks tax -- income tax credit, the child tax credit, all of these credits that lift millions of

people out of poverty, if you actually oppose this amendment, then i assume you support continuing the big oil subsidies which amounts to $25 billion. i have to assume that you want to continue these loopholes, $125 billion in revenue that allow jobs to go offshore, that allow americans to lose their jobs. i assume that if you oppose this amendment you want to keep moving forward with these corporate jet tax loopholes, $3 billion. you know, this committee unfortunately seems like it's choosing to create more hunger and more poverty in america than protecting these unnecessary subsidies. to the most profitable in the world. again, we have to look at who this committee and who this budget really represents and i have to say, congresswoman moore, it's the 1%. the 99%, you know, deserve a

share of american pride, they deserve the american dream and your amendment certainly preserves that for the most vulnerable. so thank you and i yield the balance of my time. >> i would like to know if dr. mcdermott would like to weigh in on this. >> well, thank you, ms. moore. i come in as a physician and one who looks at the needs of kids and what has happened to this country over the last 30 years. there was a time when we had something called welfare. one was entitled to it. a family, a woman and her children were entitled to money for a house and for food and for clothing and we took away that entitlement. oh, we're never going to have that welfare again. well, guess what? people are still hungry. the one entitlement they have is snap. that is they can get food stamps, they can get reduced

food costs. so, of course that budget is growing rapidly in this country. now, yesterday we passed a foolish bill to fix a problem that didn't exist about work on welfare. and the fact is that as we have pushed women out of the home to go to work, because we don't want them sitting at home with the kids, enjoying the welfare and being one of them welfare queens, we have pushed them out and we've pushed them into the workplace and they've got to pay for child care. well, you just expect them to let the kids stay at home and take care of themselves. so all these tax credits are related to people struggling to get into the work force, the earned income tax credit is saying, if you go to work and you don't make enough, we'll give you a little bit more to keep you out there, we're going to give you some money for the

child care and we're going to give you something for food. and the meanness of this budget in taking away and cutting away those basic things is saying you do not care about poor children in this country. if you care, then you want the snap program to be big, you don't want it to be cut back. unless you figure that if they would just try a little harder they could make it. i mean, those kids, you know, they're out there after school and i guess if they can find someplace to steal some food out of the local 7:11 or whatever, that's ok. >> mr. ryan wants to weigh in the rest of the time. >> i want to thank the gentlelady and the gentleman for those points. i think one point i'd like to make, look where the faith community is on this issue. look where the faith community

across the different religions and the united states have all come together and when we can't agree on a whole lot, the faith community has agreed on one issue and that's protecting the vulnerable. and hopefully we can take their lead on that. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for 10 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. before i get started, i would really very sincerely offer my respect to congresswoman moore. you have a very proud tradition standing up for the poor in this country. you have dedicated much of your time in the congress to do that and you should be commended for it. we may have some disagreements on how to get to the end game of having unemployment go down and lift people out of poverty. but i just want you to know how much i appreciate your work in this regard. regarding the food stamps, there's two ways we can look at

it. right now we're spending about $82 billion in food stamps. and i would like to have you refer to the chart because the blue line is connected to the metrics on left showing about $82 billion in food stamps and the rate of growth in spending for food stamps. the red line that you see there is unemployment in this country. and so you see the congress reacting to increasing unemployment in 2009, 2010, with increasing commitment to the poor in food stamps. however, when unemployment started to go down, went from 10% down to 7.7%, food stamps continued to go up. and the spending on food stamps has been totally decoupled from what employment is. the presidential in -- the president in his presidential campaign talked about 5.9 million americans back to work in the last three years and yet we continue to invest and spend more money on food stamps. so then the next question is,

well, but there's more people living in poverty. let me just give you some data regarding poverty. in 2004 u.s. poverty levels increased by .8% while food stamp spending increased more than that. 2006, poverty leveled increased 5.6% while food stamp spending went up 14.66%. in 2007 -- i'm sorry, in 2006, poverty went up 0%, food stamp spending went up 5.98%. so you go to the worst year, in 2009, poverty went up 8.3% but food stamps spending went up 42.54%. the country has been generous in this program. in many respects, not only are we if he dutionary to serve as the poor, to make sure that children and families have food to eat, but we also have to be responsive to the hardworking taxpayers that pay for that food. and so the budget that we're

talking about here does that very same thing. in fact, in 2007, -- 2017, when c.b.o. says unemployment will return to 5.6%, roughly equal to what it was in 2004, we will budget $77,816,000,000 for food stamps when unemployment's at 5.6%. the last time it was there was in 2004 when we spent $27 billion. nearly $50 billion more. and so we've just completely decoupled this program and i think the budget is trying to put it back together. with that i would like to yield three minutes to mr. nunnelee. >> will the gentleman yield for 10 seconds i would like to make the point that we're talking about working poor people here. this is the point mr. mcdermott made. these people are working. >> i completely recognize that. >> that's why the unemployment rate may be going down, they're now underemployed and they need help. >> which is why i gave you the comparison on poverty levels, so that we get an accurate matrix with here. with that i yield three minutes of time to mr. nunnelee.

>> thank you, mr. ribble. this amendment raises what we spend on food stamps and pays for it by raising taxes. i would suggest it's exactly the opposite of what we ought to do. the slide mr. ribble just showed, under this administration we've almost doubled what we're spending on food stamps. even if recent years, while unemployment's gone down. what we're spending on food stamps has gone up. i serve on the agricultural appropriations subcommittee and secretary vill sack and present to our committee said that 50% of the people that are on food stamps are on there an average of seven years. we've created this system of categorical eligibility that says, ok, even if you exceed all the income requirements, if you fall into certain categories, we'll put you on food stamps anyway.

and how are we going to pay for it under this amendment? we're going to raise taxes on those people that are actually creating the jobs. while we have the highest tax rate of any country in the industrialized world. i would suggest that we're penalizing those people, we ought to be simplifying our tax code, eliminating some of these loopholes, lowering our corporate tax rate so we can compete in the world market and what we don't need to do is raise taxes so that washington can spend more money. with that i yield back, mr. ribble. >> thank you, mr. nunnelee. with that i'll yield three minutes of time to my colleague from virginia, mr. rigell. >> i thank my friend for yielding and, congresswoman moore, i appreciate the intent of your amendment. and what you're trying to accomplish here. you know, helping the poor, standing with those who need a hand up is a shared american

value. and it's a shared priority, not only among democrats, but among republicans as well. and i was listening intently to the case that was being made, trying to clean some understanding of what i may not have understood already about the amendment, it is very difficult to process anything when the charges of immensely cruel and we don't care about the poor. i reject the charge, i reject the charge respectfully. it's precisely because we do care that we've incorporated some wise and much-needed reforms. i give you two quick examples. first, our budget rolls back a program or a change in the program, a recent one, called categorical eligibility. the fact is that program has been misused by states and by folks to really game the system. it's not helping the people we're intending to help. second, it requires new work and job training requirements and i do not make any apologies for that.

it is morally right to encourage people to get job training and to be in the work force. if they can't get there, we'll help them as well. but it is morally right to help people have an incentive to get into the work force. there's more common ground here than may be apparent on the surface. i think the charges that are being made, when you question the moral judgment of others, and you question our motives, this is not helpful, i think it contributes to the intoxicatics atmosphere here in washington. i'll try not to do that myself. if you see me doing it, call me out on it. but i think we can best get through this if we dial back a little bit. this program needs to be reformed and improved. our budget does that. that's why i'm proud of it and that's why i'm also urging a no vote on this particular amendment. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. and i appreciate your comments.

i think there's a lesson for everybody as we have these conversations. be cautious of how we treat each other and the respect level that we extend to one another. these are important and sometimes difficult issues, contentious issues on occasion. but we do have overlap here and there are places that we can agree. in fact, the budget is appropriating over $600 billion, that's with a b, $600 billion for food stamps over the next decade. while showing reltively by c.b.o. standards, relatively good economic growth and a reduction in unemployment levels. and it is a compassionate budget, it's one that recognizes reality and we're responsible to recognize that reality. and the fact that when things get better we should admit it and adjust how we spend money on our social safety net so that there are resources for the truly needy in times of

true need. and so with the reforms that happen here, we'll make sure that the people that need food stamps get food stamps. that the resources are there so those folks are taken care of and covered and again, i appreciate the amendment, i encourage my colleagues to vote no and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentlelady from wisconsin is recognized for a minute to close. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do appreciate all the kind words that my colleagues from the other side have rendered. just want to clear a couple things up. that chart you saw up there, you know, the fact is that the majority of the people, 75% of the people who use the food stamp program are elderly, babies, children, are infirm. so the unemployment rate

wouldn't necessarily relate to that. we had a temporary increase in food stamps, you saw that huge spike during the recovery act, as a stimulus package because there was in fact high unemployment rate. you can go on the website at your own leisure and you will see that the usda, department of agriculture, that there is a correlation between unemployment and the spike in those food stamps. but then you have the regular population of people, half of americans found themselves affected, some states more than others with the food stamp program. medicaid and food stamps have one thing in common. elders, babies and disabled people. >> time's up. >> the vulnerable. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. a roll call vote is requested. the clerk will call the roll. mr. price no. mr. garrett no. mr. campbell no. mr. calvert no.

mr. cole no. mr. mcclintock no. mr. lankford no. mrs. black no. mr. ribble no. there plor he is -- mr. flores no. mr. rokita no. mr. woodall no. mrs. blackburn. mr. nunnelee no. mr. rigell no. mrs. hartzler no. mrs. walorski no. mr. messer no. mr. rice no. mr. williams no.

mr. duffy no. mr. van hollen yes. ms. schwartz aye. mr. yarmuth aye. mr. pascrell. mr. ryan aye. ms. moore aye. ms. castor aye. mr. mcdermott aye. mr. mr. -- ms. lee aye. mr. cicilline aye. mr. jeffries aye. mr. pocan aye. mrs. lujan grich am aye. mr. hoffman -- huffman aye.

mr. blumenauer aye. mr. schrader aye. mrs. blackburn no. mr. chairman no. mr. chairman, on that vote -- oh, i'm sorry. mr. pascrell aye. mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes are 17, the noes are 22. >> ayes 17, noes 22. the amendment is not agreed to. are there other amendments? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report and distribute copies of the amendment. >> mr. chairman, an amendment offered by mr. mcdermott, an amendment preventing the end of medicare. >> the gentleman is recognized for nine minutes. >> i want to offer again an amendment, mr. chairman, to remove the medicare voucher program from the republican budget and retain the medicare

existing guaranteed benefit. this is the third time in a row, in fact, i sat on the medicare commission back in the 1990's and they tried it then, the voucher system. republican budgets call for an end to medicare as we know it with this ryan voucher program. as in years past, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are trying to hide what it's called. this time they're going to say premium support. so what's the difference between the voucher program from years past and this year's premium support? none. no amount of spin or new terms or rehearsed talking points can disguise this year's plan for what it is. if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. just like last time, the budget will ask 50 million seniors and persons with disability to trade their guaranteed benefits and reliable coverage of medicare for a voucher. a coupon that's worth only 2/3 of what today's standard plan costs. and seniors will be cut loose in the marketplace to try their

hand at haggling with the insurance companies. most of you don't remember your parents and the drug benefit but i do. many seniors won't be able to pay the thousands of dollars out of pocket. once again, the republican voucher program will dramatically increase premiums for these seniors, half of whom make $22,500 a year. that's less than $2,000 a month. now, just like last time this year's republican budget will ask our vulnerable population to navigate a private system with no guaranteed set of benefits. they are not guaranteed anything. and they'll have little if any regulation and much higher expenses. now, what could possibly go wrong with such a plan? let me tell you, over half the bankruptcies in this country are caused by medical bills. with this republican voucher program, bankruptcies among the elderly will skyrocket. why do we get -- keep getting

the same disasters -- disastrous proposal for vouchering medicare over and over? i can only guess that maybe some people don't remember why we created this guarantee in the first place. in 1940's and 1950's and 1960's, before medicare, people had to get their health care as best they could through their kids or whatever and doctors took chickens and bags of potatoes and whatever. we did this to make sure that old people got basic health care. to make sure the elderly in our society weren't bankrupted by their medical expenses. you can call the republican program whatever you like, a voucher, a premium support, comparative cost adjustment. but if this doesn't change what -- but this doesn't change what it is. the end of medicare as we know it. you cannot change that fact. either we're going to be a

humane society and guarantee for seniors health care or we aren't. either we take care of our people or we don't. we can have a balanced solution or we can do what the budget does, tear up our social contract with our seniors and those with disabilities. this is a choice. it really shouldn't be a hard one. i urge you to vote yes on the amendment. and i have several other people who want to talk here. mr. cicilline for a minute and a half. >> i thank the gentleman from washington and want to offer my strong support for this amendment. this amendment would obviously formally recognize our commitment to the guarantee and traditional structure of medicare. seniors in our country and those in my state that i have the privilege of representing deserve to know we're committed to protecting medicare. i've seen firsthand in rhode island how important medicare is to the seniors that i represent. those who are living their retirement years and rely on medicare to live with dignity and with the comfort of knowing that they have access to affordable quality health care. we absolutely cannot end medicare as we know it and convert it into a voucher

program. this would not only decimate the traditional program, it would also place seniors who enroll in the voucher program at the mercy of private insurance companies in their retirement years. programs like medicare are more than just dollars and cents. this is more than just a government program. medicare refleblingts our values as a -- reflects our values as a country. we decided that when you reach a certain age you should be guaranteed access to quality, affordable health care. it's our responsibility to maintain that promise that we made to the people who help build this country. and i just noticed today that a statement was issued by the executive vice president of aarp and it reads, chairman paul ryan's proposed budget fails to address the high costs of health care and instead shifts costs onto seniors and future retirees. we're moving the -- reing the med care guarantee of affordable coverage, seniors have contributed to with a lifetime of hard works, is not the answer. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: i yield a minute and a half to mr. pocan.

>> thank you, mr. mcdermott. you know, i'm going to repeat something that you said. you talked about half of the recipients of medicare live on $22,000 a year but what didn't get mentioned is these people spend about three times the amount on health care than anyone else. so it really has a multiple effect on people who are making the least. this past monday i had an event with seniors in madison, wisconsin, and the number one issue that came up was the fear about changes to medicare and i know that you'll say it's not going to affect them, but 10 years down the road it will affect them a little bit. but 10 years down the road you're still going to have seniors in the exact same place. who are going to be affected by these programs. i remember when i was a legislator doing doors, i had a senior crying at the door because she's trying to figure out how to pay her property taxes so they could stay in her home that she's been in all of her life. this is a real situation for so many seniors. my mother, who lives in the chairman's district, is 84. she used to be one of those people who used to cut pills in half until she told my brother and i what she was up to. this is the reality